The irresolvability of the creation/evolution debate

quote:

---

There's no reason why its more "reasonable" to believe that they were always in place, its just as unwarranted to say that they never were.

---

Sure there is, because if the laws of nature were different in the past, there would be evidence that they were.

quote:

---

I think that if you bite into empiricism and the scientific method completely then, yeah, all you end up with obviously is science and not God.

---

Why do you think that?

quote:

---

At this point I don't think it makes a lot of sense to just say, look we can never prove anything so lets go with pure empiricism because its the only thing that's "worked". Well yeah it worked but so what, its not a reason to adopt it as a framework for thinking about the origin of man.

---

Why wouldn't the fact that empricism and the scientific method work be a reason to use it to think about the origins of humans?Humans are part of nature.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The problem is that the evolution/creation debate doesn't necessarily take place on this plane: the debate is more about the origin of man and the universe, which has no immediate practical effects.

---

Er, humans are, the last time I checked, part of material reality.The universe is, too, I thought.

quote:

---

Yeah, science is cool if we're building a car or something. If we're asking about what the universe was like 6000 years ago, though, I would argue that it would be naive to privilege science or religion as necessarily correct or a more real vs. illusory belief system to use.

---

So, what is the differece between using science to tell us what was going on 6000 years ago and using science to determine, say, the cause of death of a murder victim?

quote:

---

It would be more accurate to say that postmodernism has won me over

---

Even worse.